Really, TOM, I love you man, you are a gentleman and a patriot, but you should not be so trusting and you should do your homework. From the folks at Mt Vernon, they have a whole list of spurious quotations attributed to GW...http://www.mountvernon.org/library/digi ... uotations/

This quote is partially accurate as the beginning section is taken from Washington's First Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union. However, the quote is then manipulated into a differing context and the remaining text is inaccurate. Here is the actual text from Washington's speech:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

Uh...nafod. Perhaps you are forgetting that Washington actually did use an armed militia, comprised of citizens using their private weaponry, to fight the tyranny of his own government? Quotations aside, that fact speaks for itself.

"Prepare your hearts as a fortress, for there will be no other." -Francisco Pizarro González

Altho' a large standing Army in time of Peace hath ever been considered dangerous to the liberties of a Country, yet a few Troops, under certain circumstances are not only safe, but indispensably necessary...

It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at a Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency... They ought to be regularly Mustered and trained, and to have their Arms and Accoutrements inspected at certain appointed times, not less than once or twice in the course of every [year]

He offers what I refer to as the Gene Clause

but as it is obvious, amongst such a Multitude of People (who may indeed be useful for temporary service) there must be a great number, who from domestic Circumstances, bodily defects, natural awkwardness or disinclination, can never acquire the habits of Soldiers; but on the contrary will injure the appearance of any body of Troops to which they are attached,

That doesn't really address the fact that GW clearly agreed, in deed, with the interpretation I gave of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and that it not just some romantic fantasy or "emotional myth". Finally, as far as the last sentence of your argument:

"I’m for what the founders actually meant, the true originalist interpretation. Everyone serves. An actual well trained militia. Stand down as much of the military as possible. This was the actual vision of 1776."

While we might quibble about details, I'm actually very open to this in principle.

"Prepare your hearts as a fortress, for there will be no other." -Francisco Pizarro González

The effect of it is clearly that it has stopped all research into the epidemiology of gun violence, and has done so since 1996, and the republicans are perfectly fine with maintaining that ignorance of the matter.

No, it states (see page 245): "Provided further, That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control..."

In other words, there will be no federal funding of efforts to advocate or promote gun control. Nothing stops private individuals or organizations from conducting "epidemiology" of gun violence on their own dime.

FC. that is so disingenuous as to be functionally equivalent to a lie.

For one, the 2 houses of Congress have consistently interpreted any research into "gun violence as a health issue", as BEING advocacy or promotion of gun control. Just researching it equals advocacy. And for two, it also dictates the conclusion of any research: the only research that is legal to fund is reserch that concludes that gun violence is NOT a significant factor for injury prevention and control. Any research that finds otherwise, can be interpreted as "advocating" or "promoting" gun control, and is therefor disqualified from funding. The RESULTS of the research can make disqualify it. That is fundamentally anti-science. Par for the course for Repubs, of course.

And for three, fuck you to all that. A researcher should naturally in the course of their work uncover facts what would lead them to "advocate" for certain things as an outcome of their work. Biologists "advocate" against mainlining mercury. Epidemiologists "advocate" for vaccinations. Ecologists "advocate" against dumping toxic wastes into our water supply. Nutritionists "advocate" against eating raw cookie dough 3 times a day. Any potential "advocacy" from a gun-violence researcher should at least have the potential to be treated the same way.

We take The Boy to a well-child exam every year, somewhere around his birthday. Every year the doc asks:

Does he wear a seatbelt in the car?

Does he wear a helmet when he rides his bike?

Anyone smoke in the house?

Does he drink milk?

Are there any guns in the house?

Is she trying to violate our Second Amendment rights? She has a Chinese last-name, and looks Asian: so I'm not rejecting this out of hand. Maybe she's a goddam undercover Commie. But it's also possible that she's just asking about potential health risks to the kid. I'm on the fence.

Nothing stops private individuals or organizations from conducting "epidemiology" of gun violence on their own dime.

Yeah sure, I could take the few bucks I'm planning to kick in to IGx, and instead fund some college kid spending a couple hours trying to collate statistics from the library. Not exactly the same potential for far-reaching impact that the NIH or CDC has.

The reality is that firearms are not a significant threat to public health. They are not even in the top ten:

Sangoma touched on this concept a little. The World Health Organization uses a metric along the lines of "healthy days lost" to illness (it might be years?), to assess and rank public health threats. Due to that usage, a disease like depression, that strikes in adolescence and is chronic over many decades, ranks stunningly high

Diseases that are primarily of old age, would rank a lot lower than the pure "lethality" stats might suggest. Everyone dies of something: if it's something that gets you in your 60s or 70s, then it could easily rank a lot lower in impact on public health, than something that gets you in your teens & twenties.

If young people are disproportionally represented among gun victims (unknown to me: I'm just talking about a measurement system), then gun violence would be a much greater risk to public health than the straight fatality stats imply. (Would require going much deeper into the data than I ever have.)

Talk of limiting any constitutional right in the tiniest degree should be a last resort, not a first move.

The notion that the Second Amendment applies to individual citizens outside of "the militia", is a strictly brand-new 21st C phenomenon, fabricated out of whole-cloth by so-called "originalist" Scalia. The hypocrite.

Uh...nafod. Perhaps you are forgetting that Washington actually did use an armed militia, comprised of citizens using their private weaponry, to fight the tyranny of his own government? Quotations aside, that fact speaks for itself.

Yes, a "well regulated militia". Precisely the words that Scalia edited out of the Second.

That doesn't really address the fact that GW clearly agreed, in deed, with the interpretation I gave of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and that it not just some romantic fantasy or "emotional myth".

Bullshit. GW was a soldier, and believed in the importance of a "well regulated militia".

Here's what he wrote in the cover letter transmitting the Constitution to Congress. The letter is signed only by him:

George Washington wrote:Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved...

He wrote that, YEARS after the conclusion of the Revolutionary War.

Ok, I have two questions:

#1:
So what would happen if the Second got amended out? The likelihood of this is crazy low. But what would happen?

Gun laws would revert to the states, right?

So DC residents would go without (the law overturned by Heller); liberal Northeast states would have pretty strict gun control laws. Texans would be sporting six-shooters on their hips. States with a large proportion of "wild outdoors" (I'm thinking places like Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, etc), nearly everyone would have at least a rifle. Some Conservative would use the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" to concoct a challenge to a strict state's law: "I can carry in Texas, why not here in DC?!? This is exactly analogous to gay marriages from Massachusetts!" And the courts would work it out.

Is that a disaster for gun lovers?

#2:
How does possession of a gun in this day and age, do ANYTHING AT ALL to "protect" you from the tyranny of the govt? Any brandishing of a weapon in front of LEO will get you dead pretty quick. The folks at Waco & Ruby Ridge were pretty well-armed, compared to the average citizen. Didn't help much.

I'm not so much advocating lying down and showing your belly: but as an argument, how does the "protection from tyranny" line of discussion have any practical impact? Seems to me that it would be much more effective "protection from tyranny" to get a damn law degree, than to stock up on guns.

“War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. Other simple remedies were within their choice. You know it and they know it, but they wanted war, and I say let us give them all they want.”
― William Tecumseh Sherman

The issue is surely complicated, and arguments are fairly convincing on both sides here. Statistical data can be tweaked and considered from different angles as well. For instance, states with more guns have more gun related deaths. More deaths because there are more guns? Or is it that crime rate is high in the state and people are buying more guns to defend themselves? The question is, would taking away guns in this case would lead to more or less deaths? That would be interventional research, but good luck trying to even suggest such an experiment.

We take The Boy to a well-child exam every year, somewhere around his birthday. Every year the doc asks:
Does he wear a seatbelt in the car?
Does he wear a helmet when he rides his bike?
Anyone smoke in the house?
Does he drink milk?
Are there any guns in the house?

First, you seem very upset about my clarifying the language of the Dickey Amendment by quoting it but in your excitement you seem to have missed the part where I said, and I quote, "the law is frankly foolish." Deep breaths, friend-o. I quoted it and posted the link so that we could all speak to the actual text, not to defend it. I am all for the collection and analysis of data.

Second, I honestly have no idea where you are going with the Asian American doctor analogy. If you can clarify it, I'll try to respond.

Third, I don't think it's crazy that people who feel strongly about something actually put their money where their mouth is and fund the thing they're howling for, rather than simply insist that the government do it for them. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Fourth, I think the idea of healthy days lost is an interesting one and I would be interested in what the data would show regarding that. Do you know what the number is for gun deaths of youths in America? Or is that a casualty of the Dickey Amendment? Perhaps so, but where I live very few young people get shot, in other places where the social conditions allow it, they much higher. This makes me view the problem of firearm violence among young people an outcome of other social factors, and not merely a result of the legality and availability of guns.

Fifth, I absolutely think the British people are denied their right to self defense by denying them the right to arm themselves while in full knowledge that criminals are armed and prepared to use those arms in service of their crimes.

Sixth, re: the GW/well regulated militia/Scalia section of your post. You are aware that a great many people disagree, and have disagreed, with your version of its meaning for a lot longer than the past eighteen years. You have your opinion. Apparently congress, the supreme court, and vast swathes of the American populace disagree with it.

Seventh, in answer to your two questions.

1. The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant the right to keep and bear arms, it denies Congress the ability to make any law infringing on it. The right is considered self-evident. If the 2nd Amendment went away, it would mean the Congress does have the ability to make federal laws infringing that right, and yes, that would be a disaster for human freedom.

2. Protection from tyranny extends well beyond the government, to anyone who exercises cruel, capricious, and arbitrary use of power to deny other people their freedoms. If you can't see how being well armed helps limit that possibility, let me leave you with these words of Epicurus: "Those who possess the power to defend themselves against threats by their neighbors, being thus in possession of the surest guarantee of security, live the most pleasant life with one another."

"Prepare your hearts as a fortress, for there will be no other." -Francisco Pizarro González

We take The Boy to a well-child exam every year, somewhere around his birthday. Every year the doc asks:
Does he wear a seatbelt in the car?
Does he wear a helmet when he rides his bike?
Anyone smoke in the house?
Does he drink milk?
Are there any guns in the house?

Fat Cat, the CDC does have the numbers for firearms related injuries and deaths, age, location, and ethnicity in their database. You can go to their webpage, input queries, and generate maps of it. Knowledge of the numbers injured or killed is not hidden or blocked by the Dickey amendment.

Fat Cat, the CDC does have the numbers for firearms related injuries and deaths, age, location, and ethnicity in their database. You can go to their webpage, input queries, and generate maps of it. Knowledge of the numbers injured or killed is not hidden or blocked by the Dickey amendment.

This is a better site, if you want the data. The CDC lags a lot, while this is updated continuously.

GVA numbers are found through 2,000 LEO, government and media sources daily...our numbers are based on provable reported individual incidents. While CDC utilizes death certificates for gun deaths, they, and the FBI rely on a sampling of sources and extrapolate those numbers to provide aggregate totals that reflect the calculations within their methodologies.

“War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. Other simple remedies were within their choice. You know it and they know it, but they wanted war, and I say let us give them all they want.”
― William Tecumseh Sherman

“War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. Other simple remedies were within their choice. You know it and they know it, but they wanted war, and I say let us give them all they want.”
― William Tecumseh Sherman

Second, I honestly have no idea where you are going with the Asian American doctor analogy.

Oh, just saying that the pediatrician seems to regard guns as a legitimate domain of inquiry for a doctor. Judging by her demeanor, her follow-up question would be something about a gun-safe, or locks, or whatever. She's pretty business-like. Apolitical (at least in her interactions with me).

I think the idea of healthy days lost is an interesting one and I would be interested in what the data would show regarding that.

I don't know very much about it, it's just an idea I bounced off of while reading about something else. And to be clear, I don't know if WHO studies gun violence; I was just referencing the measurement concept, not any relevant data or info.

re: the GW/well regulated militia/Scalia section of your post. You are aware that a great many people disagree, and have disagreed, with your version of its meaning for a lot longer than the past eighteen years. You have your opinion. Apparently congress, the supreme court, and vast swathes of the American populace disagree with it.

Eh, people believe what they want to believe. Honestly, Scalia's hypocrisy is the part of the whole thing that pisses me off. Dude stakes out this "Originalist" posture as some sort of Holy Writ, across decades; and then pulls this shit. And gets Canonized for it! Stevens dissent to Heller is the most honest & intelligent take on the legal side.

Yeah: the view of the Founders was not that the Bill of Rights granted any rights. The view was that people had "Natural Rights" (we might say human rights, now) beyond any govt or law. The Bill of Rights just constrained the Fed toward some of those rights; but it was understood then not to be an "exhaustive" list. Ironic that "Originalists" so often try to take the Ninth Amendment out of the equation.

these words of Epicurus: "Those who possess the power to defend themselves against threats by their neighbors, being thus in possession of the surest guarantee of security, live the most pleasant life with one another."

There's a hidden dilemma there, right? "Those who possess the power to defend themselves against their neighbors," also possess the power to oppress those of their neighbors who have not similarly armed themselves. Yeah? If you have an AR-15 for home defense, and I have a baseball bat; then if you decide to come over and take my flat screen, I'm outgunned. Do we need to have an escalating arms race to guarantee our pleasant lives?

“War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. Other simple remedies were within their choice. You know it and they know it, but they wanted war, and I say let us give them all they want.”
― William Tecumseh Sherman

With the latest statistics available as of 2018, in 2015, according to statistics compiled by the Department of Transportation, 3,477 people died and another 391,000 were injured in motor vehicle crashes caused by drivers who were distracted because they were texting or using cell phones.

With the latest statistics available as of 2018, in 2015, according to statistics compiled by the Department of Transportation, 3,477 people died and another 391,000 were injured in motor vehicle crashes caused by drivers who were distracted because they were texting or using cell phones.

You have high body-count incidents committed both with pistols and with AR's. At various times, the "record" has been held by either.* The weapon is not the determining factor.

In the Las Vegas murders, the key factor was firing on a mass of people who couldn't escape.

Don't tell me that ten minutes of unimpeded fire with a deer rifle wouldn't accomplish the same horror. One 30.06 round every 2 seconds X 10 minutes = up to 300 rounds with a truly devastating round. Could that take 58 lives?

With the latest statistics available as of 2018, in 2015, according to statistics compiled by the Department of Transportation, 3,477 people died and another 391,000 were injured in motor vehicle crashes caused by drivers who were distracted because they were texting or using cell phones.

We lose an average of 6 people a year to foreign terrorists

I absolutely agree that the threat of terrorism is waaaay overblown in the US, largely due to opportunistic media and politicians who thrive in a climate of fear.

The reality is that, for the vast majority of people, things have never been better in the US.

"Prepare your hearts as a fortress, for there will be no other." -Francisco Pizarro González

According to this report, non-Hispanic blacks made up 12.1 percent of the US population in 2014.

In 2014, there were 11,008 homicides in the US committed with a firearm.

In 2014, there were 6,095 homicides of black folks in the US.

Of those, fully 5,773 (83%) homicides were committed with a firearm.

There are a great deal of other interesting statistics and data in the report I linked. But, what can you conclude from this? More than half of all firearm related homicides in America are among blacks, who make up a whopping 12.1% of the population.

In other words, if you kept guns out of the hands of blacks, you could cut the firearm-related homicide rate in half. Sure, we'd be serving them up a nice cup of Jim Crow denial of rights, but if saving lives is our guiding principle, there you go.

Would banning bump stocks, high-cap magazines, and assault rifles help? Well, no; it turns out that 73% or three out of every four black victims of firearm violence are committed with a handgun.

Now the report wraps up with this fallacious statement, "Successful efforts to reduce America’s black homicide toll, like America’s homicide toll as a whole, must put a focus on reducing access and exposure to firearms."

But that doesn't tally with the data does it? White Americans have better access and exposure to firearms--by sheer numbers alone--and the report clearly states:

"The homicide rate for black male victims was 29.54 per 100,000. In comparison, the overall rate for male homicide victims was 6.70 per 100,000. For white male homicide victims it was 3.65 per 100,000. The homicide rate for female black victims was 4.28 per 100,000. In comparison, the overall rate for female homicide victims was 1.73 per 100,000. For white female homicide victims it was 1.41 per 100,000."

Thus, black men and women have similar rates of access to firearms but have vastly different outcomes with regard to homicide. Exposure isn't what makes the difference. The key differences are: race, sex, and poverty. And since you can't change the race of someone (Michael Jackson excluded) and you can't change the sex of someone, poverty is the factor which is the key manipulable variable. No need to go denying people their constitutional rights, address poverty.

"Prepare your hearts as a fortress, for there will be no other." -Francisco Pizarro González

In February, Tiffany Pelt, the spokesperson for the Lubbock Police Department, posted on the department’s Facebook page about what she called a “disturbing trend.” She pointed out that 384 guns had been reported stolen out of cars last year in the Texas city — firearms that were now circulating through the black market.

Some people instinctively blame the criminal. Others blame the victim.

I blame the stupid.

“Cars were not designed to be gun safes,” said Chris Hooper, a police lieutenant in Corpus Christi, Texas, which put up billboard ads to warn drivers about the risks of keeping guns in cars. “We’ve tried our best to express that concern.”...

In January, a convicted felon with confirmed gang ties was shot by Lubbock police after he pulled a handgun on officers in a neighborhood near Texas Tech University. Police later found out that the handgun had been stolen from the center console of an unlocked GMC pickup truck in September.